This is a better development site for the sort of iconic tower Menino wants to see built in Winthrop Square...More land, better access to public transportation, zero interference from the FAA...If the city wants to seriously court developers to build big (>800'), this is one place to do it (the other, for all the same reasons, is the site of the old Boston Garden)...

This is a better development site for the sort of iconic tower Menino wants to see built in Winthrop Square...More land, better access to public transportation, zero interference from the FAA...If the city wants to seriously court developers to build big (>800'), this is one place to do it (the other, for all the same reasons, is the site of the old Boston Garden)...

But why not a huge tower in all these places?

Probably because there is no demand for that much space. The only reason to build a tall building is because there is demand or at least speculative demand.

People here seem to get a hard on for skyscrapers but in reality they arn't that great and only exists when they need to. Boston doesn't have a lot of them becuase Bostons economy doesn't justify it. It has nothing to do with height or design restrictions (though Logan airport does affect them in certain areas).

This is a better development site for the sort of iconic tower Menino wants to see built in Winthrop Square...More land, better access to public transportation, zero interference from the FAA...If the city wants to seriously court developers to build big (>800'), this is one place to do it (the other, for all the same reasons, is the site of the old Boston Garden)...

But why not a huge tower in all these places?

Probably because there is no demand for that much space. The only reason to build a tall building is because there is demand or at least speculative demand.

People here seem to get a hard on for skyscrapers but in reality they arn't that great and only exists when they need to. Boston doesn't have a lot of them becuase Bostons economy doesn't justify it. It has nothing to do with height or design restrictions (though Logan airport does affect them in certain areas).

I'd bet a lot of money that, if given free reign in each of these areas, developers and local corporations would salivate at the prospect of building enormous buildings on every one of these sites.

I'd bet a lot of money that, if given free reign in each of these areas, developers and local corporations would salivate at the prospect of building enormous buildings on every one of these sites.

I'd bet a lot of money that you are wrong. This isn't Manhattan, and even here there arn't as many towers as you think there are (but there are a lot). Hell even the Freedom Tower needs to be saved by filling it with New York State and Federal Government offices. And I am willing to bet that won't be under construction for at least 2 more years.

Developers build towers because they think they can find someone to lease the space, weather office or luxury condos. These are small markets, even in big cities. Offices need to be convinced that it is worth the extra money to move into an expensive tower rather than a cheap office park in the suburbs, close to the people who would be working in them. Luxury condos, while the new big thing, only are for the top 1% of people, really rich people who don't really add anything to the city other than a limo blocking traffic as they get picked up (generalization, I know).

Then there is the actual cost of the building. When a building goes taller than 20 or 30 floors you need to start redesigning the tower to support the higher floors, elevators, AC/Heating, etc. That raises the bill.

The Pru and Hancock were only built to stroke the ego's of their companies and even they have left. Same for the Sears Tower in Chicago.

I'd bet a lot of money that you are wrong. This isn't Manhattan, and even here there arn't as many towers as you think there are (but there are a lot). Hell even the Freedom Tower needs to be saved by filling it with New York State and Federal Government offices. And I am willing to bet that won't be under construction for at least 2 more years.

Nope, the Freedom Tower construction has not started yet. I just got back from NYC last night, and I was down on Wall St. I go to the city a lot, and I always stop by Ground Zero to check for any sort of status. That construction going on right now is just preparation for anything that might be going there in the future.

Also the NY1 news channel reported on Tuesday morning that the Port Authority directors have withdrawn their agreements to move into that space when completed. They feel it is too big of a terror threat and kindly backed out. Bloomberg is not too happy about that, and he commented about this on Monday. He said that he basically has no tenants to take the space. This is a huge problem that the city is facing right now, but construction seems to be booming up in the midtown area. The NY Times building is coming along.

That small blue tarp covered object in the bottom middle of the picture is the corner stone. It was laid a few years back so the things would keep on the schedule Gov Pataki chose.

Actually the corner stone was removed as they have since changed the position of the Freedom Tower in the master plan. They laid it to try and show that they had unity in building the Freedom town but obviously this is still a hot issue.

Having very tall (> 70 floors) buildings at the edge of the skyscraper district reminds me of the Chicago skyline, which has its tallest buildings off to the side, creating, oh what do they call it, a "bridge" I think.
OK, this isn't a fair comparison to our garage site, since this still has modestly tall buildings past the biggest ones, but I'm still OK with a very tall building at that site, but then again, I just like tall buildings.

BOSTON-The calls from investors, pension fund advisors and parking lot operators started coming into Cushman & Wakefield?s Boston office even before the city?s largest parking garage hit the market.
?We?ve had so many different people calling,? Robert Griffin, with Cushman & Wakefield, tells GlobeSt.com, referring to the interest in One Congress St., the landmark parking garage near the Haymarket. Although no price has been set for the property, Griffin believes it will fetch well beyond $200 million.

Griffin says the scarcity of parking garages in Boston combined with the property?s location, strong tenant base and potential air rights that could allow a tower to be built on the site, should bring out a number of bidders during the 25 to 45 days the garage is expected to be on the market.

The 11-story, 2,310-car garage, which spans four acres on over two city blocks, goes on the market today and Griffin is sure that the competition is bound to be stiff. Owned by the RAK Group of New York City, the property commands a prominent spot on the fringes of Government Center, the North End and the Bulfinch Triangle area, has 313,527 sf of office and retail space, a large portion of it leased to the federal government, and has views of the Boston Harbor and Financial District, according to Cushman & Wakefield, the garage?s exclusive marketing agent.

yeah, i agree. this is the biggest garage in Boston and Boston is the second most expensive city to park in in the entire country! yes, the garage is disgusting and yes, removing it would be beneficial to the surrounding area, but how is it possible? the developer would have to be seriously innovative on this one to keep parking on the site while building a new complex.

Maybe we on this board could scrape together the $200 mil to buy it, tear it down, and build our dream project here. I've got $15.25 I can contribute. But on second thought, I don't think we would be able to agree on what to do even if we got the remaining $999,984.75.

Maybe we on this board could scrape together the $200 mil to buy it, tear it down, and build our dream project here. I've got $15.25 I can contribute. But on second thought, I don't think we would be able to agree on what to do even if we got the remaining $999,984.75.

I'm all in favor just putting ablarc in charge of the whole thing. Anyone oppose?

Maybe we on this board could scrape together the $200 mil to buy it, tear it down, and build our dream project here. I've got $15.25 I can contribute. But on second thought, I don't think we would be able to agree on what to do even if we got the remaining $999,984.75.

I'm all in favor just putting ablarc in charge of the whole thing. Anyone oppose?